12:39 pm in andrew thomas, andrew thomas 7-19-2012, andrew thomas witchhunt, arizona republic, AZ News, az republic, dared speak up to defend andrew thomas, disciplinary hearing, disciplining lawyers, Headlines, independent investigator, Local News, maricopa county government, maricopa county sheriff joe arpaio, mary wilcox perjury, mob behavior, probable cause, public perception, Rachel Alexander, state bar's witchhunt against thomas wrong, thomas robb, vendors who contributed heavily to maricopa, wilcox by TPT Admin
Robb: Criminal accusations against Thomas belonged fairly heard in a court of law, not a Bar disciplinary proceeding
Opinion relied upon Thomas’s press releases, not real evidence; indicating that the trial was rigged.
Even the Arizona Republic’s columnist Robert Robb, no fan of Andrew Thomas, has written multiple times how the State Bar’s witchhunt against Thomas was wrong. Robb is not an attorney so he can safely speak out without fear of retaliation, unlike the poor attorneys who have dared speak up to defend Thomas. They have been retaliated against by losing their contracts with Maricopa County, having bar complaints filed against them, and losing their positions with the State Bar.
Robb recognizes that what is going on in Maricopa County government and the court system is mob behavior. First it was the kickbacks on the court tower; vendors who contributed heavily to Maricopa County’s golf tournament received pricey contracts on the court tower. Then it was smack down anyone who tried to investigate it. The smacking down continues, as anyone who dares to speak up about the corruption or stop it finds themselves under attack. This is nothing more than mob behavior running amok within our own county. The racketeering continues and escalates, as Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox awards herself $975,000 of our taxpayers’ money for “stress” over being prosecuted.
Here are some excerpts from Robb’s recent article:
“The kitchen-sink approach the independent investigator took in the Thomas charges undermined the public perception of the process’ fairness.
Parsing Thomas’ press releases rather than just focusing on the big stuff, like charging a judge with a crime without probable cause, created a sense that the game was rigged.
The disciplinary-hearing panel concluded that Thomas violated two criminal statutes. This is fundamentally unfair. Guilt or innocence of criminal offenses has no business being judged in a professional disciplinary hearing.
The state Bar is a trade-association advocacy group that takes aggressive positions on public issues and controversies. It also plays a central role in disciplining lawyers.
Thomas protested that this constituted a conflict of interest because, early on, the Bar was investigating complaints against him for behavior that Bar officials had publicly criticized.
But that doesn’t change the institutional question of whether these two roles are appropriately vested in the same organization. It’s not the case for any other profession.
Recent changes have reduced the role of the Bar in the disciplinary process. But it is still where lawyer discipline begins, so the question remains.”
A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Thursday, July 19, 2012